Mesorat%20hashas for Niddah 90:48

אי דלא אייתי שתי שערות קטן הוא אלא לאו דאייתי שתי שערות

it follows, does it not, that the intervening period is regarded as that of over age? — This, however, is no argument, Raba having laboured under a misapprehension. He thought that R. Hamnuna drew his inference from a Mishnah redundancy,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the apparent superfluity of the rulings PRIOR TO THIS AGE etc. and SUBSEQUENT TO etc. discussed and explained supra. ');">⁴³</span> [hence he argued that] instead of drawing an inference from the final clause he might as well have drawn one from the first clause; but this was not the case. R. Hamnuna in fact drew his inference from the very wording<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'from the body'. ');">⁴⁴</span> of our Mishnah. How [he reasoned] is one to understand the expression of 'SUBSEQUENT TO THAT AGE'? If by that time one had not yet grown two hairs, one would, surely, still be a minor.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' How then could it be ruled, THEIR VOW IS VALID etc. ');">⁴⁵</span> Consequently it must refer to one who had grown two hairs,

Explore mesorat%20hashas for Niddah 90:48. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.